From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42459 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PuRne-0007UK-1e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:47:47 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PuRnb-0001eD-R1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:47:45 -0500
Received: from mail-yw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.213.45]:35873)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PuRnb-0001e5-OW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:47:43 -0500
Received: by ywl41 with SMTP id 41so2115906ywl.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:47:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D6D151A.8080502@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:47:38 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Allow cache settings for block
	devices to be changed at runtime.
References: <20110228171956.05a84fb9@zephyr>	<4D6BBB72.6040205@redhat.com>	<AANLkTim2iv4zAhLsC5XzhOX9o3bMVQ866O3z-ZAWG7r4@mail.gmail.com>	<4D6BC3DE.7000208@redhat.com>	<AANLkTi=CiR1HpS4qHFi0SNS1BFy1+O2k5kNjpjo5M5rJ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D6CF32C.4090709@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D6CF32C.4090709@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Ananth Narayan <ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Prerna Saxena <prerna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

On 03/01/2011 08:22 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Certainly good questions, but let me suggest not taking an HMP command
>> and not a QMP commans because of interface concerns.
>>
>> My goal for 0.15 is to convert HMP to be implemented in terms of QMP.
>> To do that, a bunch of new QMP commands are needed.  They all won't be
>> perfect but i'd rather support a bad QMP command forever than to
>> continue to/ have people rely on HMP.
>>      
> Okay, makes sense. So we should reject patches that add new HMP commands
> without adding a QMP counterpart.
>    

Definitely.  We essentially are supporting HMP today just as much as QMP 
but HMP is much harder to support (no standard way to interpret 
input/output/errors).

>>>> I agree that the guest should control the
>>>> emulated drive cache at runtime and we probably don't want to allow
>>>> toggling that from the host - it could be dangerous :).
>>>>          
>>> Good point. That's a NACK for this patch as long as we haven't separated
>>> WCE from the host cache setting.
>>>        
> Doesn't make a difference for this one, though, because it's NACKed anyway.
>
> Kevin
>
> PS: Anthony, is there a specific reason why you started sending HTML emails?
>    

Because I was stuck using my phone because of bad hotel wireless :-/

Regards,

Anthony Liguori